The Sun. — London, England, 1864-11-17 00:00:00

Railway and Other Companies. LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN. This company has given notice to apply for powers In the next session of Parliament to construct new lines in Kensington, Fulham, Hammersmith, and Chiswick, and to abandon lines authorised last sea. sion. They propose to make a railway (A) from the West London Extension at Kensington to the Rich mond.road, Hammersmith; a railway (B) from the latter place to the Hammersmith and City Rail. way, near the southern termination of the viaduct on that irailway. A railway (C) from th e W es t London Railway near the Kensington Station to the intended railway (B) at Hammersmith. A rail way (D) from the latter place to the Grovearoad. A railway (E) from the authorised Kensington and Richmond line at Chiswick to the company's loop line there. So empowered, the company to Ethan. don the construction of No. 1 and 4 respectively authorised by the company's Kensington and Rich mond Railway Act, 1864, and to substitute for those railways the intended railways (B and C), Power to raise further money to run over and use a por tion of the Hammersmith and City Railway, and to make arrangements with the latter company, No tice has also been given of intended application for power to make new lines in Surrey from the King wton• bridge line to the company's main line at Wim bladon—a railway from Kingston to th e company ' s main line near the Malden station--a railway from the Wimbledon and Dorking Railway at Merton to the company's main line at Wimbledon—two other junction lines in the parish of Wimbledon, and one in the parish of Merton—to raise a further sum of money and to make agreements with the London and Brighton, the Wimbledon and Croydon, and the Tooting, Merton, and Wimbledon Extension Railway Company. They also propose in another notice to extend the main line at Pirbright to the Farnham and Alron Branch near Farnham, and to make a branch to the South Eastern Railway near Ash—to raise additional capital, and to make traffic and other arrangements with the South Eastern Railway Company, GELLIVARA (LIMITED). The report of Mr Tolme, the engineer to the directors of this company, states that the property of the company consists of 1,250,00 acres of land more or less in a state of forest, in the county of Norbotten, stretching from Lulea, Pitea, and Ranee, three important ports on the Gulf of Bothnia, to Gellivara and Quickjock, in Lapland, a distance northward of about 170 miles, by a breadth of about 70 miles ; upon this property there are at present 11 saw mills, four forges, and two blast fur. naces. The saw mills are all, with the exception of one, worked by water power, and contiguous to the rivers which bring down the logs from the forest. These mills are capable of sawing a large quantity of timber annually, and their sawing power will no doubt be greatly augmented. The year's production of deals, battens, boards, and square timber at all the mills:was considered to be about 9,000 standards, and under the usual average, owing to the late winter and excessive flood. The furnaces are situated very conveniently with regard to the charcoal forests, to gether with the waste wood of the saw mills; an almost inexhaustible supply of fuel may be obtained for consumption in the manufacture of metals. The soil is good, and the Government have made a very liberal arrangement by which a large portion of land at present covered by forest, shall, when the timber is felled and the roots grubbed up, belong to the Gel livara Company. The minerals which the company possess are principally in the mountains of Galli. wars, and the richness of this deposit is obvious on inspection. There are a great number of quarries opened all along the face of the mountain, not more than four or five feet deep, all containing masses of the purest iron ore. To utilise this large quantity of rich ore it is suggested that a railway should be con. structed from a mice or a quarry on the Gellivara mountain, proceeding for a distance of 14 miles to the ct stward, and then taking nearly a southern direc tion, terminating on the river Lulea at Novick, which river will be navigable utter tne tormatton or the canals from that point:to the sea. T he country through :which the lines passes is easy, the deepest cutting being about 20ft, and the highest embankment 201 ft. The gradients are generally with the load, and in no case does the incline exceed 1 in 100. The struc ture of the railway will be of timber, and the gauge not more 31 ft. to keep down the expense of loco motive stock. The works upon the canal are light, and will principally consist of excavation and pud dling. The Swedish Government have granted the company a subvention of £48,000 towards making the canals, which will form a large proportion of the cast of construction. Mr Tolne proposes to work the railway and canals during five or six months of the year, and to bring sufficient ore down during those months to keep the furnaces at work all the year. He considers the estates gene. rally capable of great development, and that the opening of the railway and canals will, in his opinion, afford every prospect of good remuneration upon the capital to be laid out. • ALEXANDRA DOCKS, NE WPORT. Notices have been given of an intended applica tion to Parliament in the next session for powars to construct the above new docks at Newport. The undertaking is to be carried out on Lord Trede gar's property, and the proposed capital is £500,000, the greater part of which has been already sub scribed. Branch railways are to be made to connect the docks with the Great Western, London and North Western, Monmouthshire, and other lines, the especial object of the promoters being to deve■ lope both an import and export trade for New port. The Plaistow Murder. The police engaged under Mr Superintendent Howie in collecting evidence as to the manner in which this murder was perpetrated, have acquired some most important particulars since Monday last. On that day, at a distance of about 17ft from the spot where the body of the murdered man was disco vered, a large clasp knife was found, and on inquiry the police learnt the important fact that the knife was the prisoner Kohl's, and had been seen in his possession so late as the Sunday after the murdered man was missing. They have also learnt that on that Sunday evening he desired to be called early on the following morning, and they have reasons for believing that he arose and went out before days light, and returned home about breakfast time. The finding of this knife therefore connects the prisoner still more with the crime, and the fact of its being in his possession so long after the time when the man was missed, taken in connection with this early and secret journey, has lad to the opinion that the mutilation of the body was not effected until Mon. day, and was the result of an afterthought. That the head was not severed from the body at the time of the murder is proved by the severed flesh cuttings being of more recent date than the other mutila tions, and it is not improbable that the murderer was induced to visit the scene of the crime in order to effect this mutilation in conseqienee of the ins quiries which were being made about the deceased. The authorities of Scotland-yard, in reply to a mes sage which they a few days since transmitted to the police authorities of H am b urg, h ave l earnt t h at the description given of the deceased has led to the identification of the body as that of Theodore Chris tian Fuhrhop, a clerk in the firm of Messrs Neu mann and Co., of that city, and w h o l e f t t h ere f or England about six weeks since. In the vessel in which deceased came to England Kohl also came, and it is believed the two first made each other's acquaintance on board. Kohl had gone to Hamburg he had stated, to get some property to which he was entitled ; but it would appear that his journey was a fruitless one, as he was shortly after his re turn borrowing money of his wife's relatives. The deceased man signed his proper name on board the vessel, but it is remarked that the prisoner signed a name very different from the one he now gives. Mucli additional evidence will be brought before the adjourned coroner's court this day, and which, it is thought, will have the effect of leading to the com mittal of the prisoner upon the coroner's warrant. ANOTHER BANK INQUIRY, Yesterday Mr Frederick Symons, wine and ST "rit mer chant, of 64, Lower Thames-street, appeared 1 efore Sir Alderman Stone, who was sitting for the Lon! Mayor of the Mansion-house, in answer to a summoai taken out at the instance of IMr Ralph Waters, one of thl dii ectors of the London and Northern Bank, charging h'm with having threatened to publish a certain matter or thing touching the complainant and other of the directors of the said bank, with intent to extort money from the directors, contrary to the statute 6th and 7th Tic., cap. 96, sec 3. Mr Metcalfe, instructed by Mr Turner, solicitor, appeared to support the complaint ; and Mr Lewis, jun., appeared for the defendant. Mr Metcalfe said he was instructed by the directors of the London and Northern Bank to support a summits against Mr Fred. Symons for having threatened to pub lish a certain matter concerning them, with intent to extort money from them. The London and Northern Bank was formed in the early part of 1862, having been promoted by two gentlemen who had long since ceased to have anything to do with it. The bank was opened in July by the direc tors and;the promoters. who had themselves gone to a good deal of trouble and expense, and paid a sum of £lO,OOO. The capital subscribed for was £500,000, and £119,000 was paid up, and the bank started with every prospect of success, which was abundantly carried out from that time until Sept. in the present year; and the bank, which had a paid-41p capital of £119,000, increased to £140,000 by a subsequent call, made at the rate of £20,000 a year profit. In Sept. considerable losses wore sustained. The Leeds Bank failed, and the failure of some of the customers of the bank took place at the same time, and the result was that the bank lost a considerable sum, which was, however, estimated at the very highest at £35,000, which amount, it was very proba ble, would be considerably lessened by dividends from the estates of those who had failed. The defendant,Mr Symons, was a shareholder to a considerable amount, and got fright ened when this loss was made known, and wished to realise the shares which he held in the bank, but instead of selling them in the market and submitting to a fair discount, the shares having fallen about £5 per cent, he went to the directors and said he wanted them to take his shares off his hands at par. This they could not do, the shares being at a discount in the market. Defoudaut said they must do so, and if they did not do so ho was going to publish a certain document, at the same time taking from his pockot what appeared to be a circular, saying that the directors had plenty of money, and it would be an awkward thing for them if they did not. The paper, which it appeared was the draft of a circular to call a meeting of the shareholders of the bank, was afterwards printed. Mr Metcalfe said the circulating of this circular was something that was detri•. mental to the directors, and which the defendant threatened to publish if they did not pay him. He said the defendant, as a shareholder, would have a perfect right to issue a cir cular to call a meeting of shareholders, and might make statements which, although false, he might believe to be true without any serious consequences ; but at the same time he had no right to say to the directors "If you do not pay me my money, I will publish a certain thing or make certain statements which will not only damage your characters as directors, but will damage the bank." The meeting of shareholders was not called, and he should submit that there never was any intention of doing so; but the thing was fliunted about merely for the purpose of inducing the directors to give the defendant the money for his shares. The next proceeding on the part of defendant was to file a bill in Chancery,to which he thought it necessary to draw attention. The defendant, no doubt, had also a right to file a bill in Chancery; but at the same time he had no right to threaten to extort money and then ale a bill because he could not get it, and make a series of false statements, and nothing, he said, could be more false than some of the statements which defendant had made in the bill, and sworn to as true in his belief, Mr Lewis said the bill could not be filed. There was an injunction obtained on it, against which not one of the direc tors had put in an a ;: lava to contradict the matters con tained in it. Mr Metcalfe went on to say that the bill purported to be on behalf of the defendant and other shareholders, but he should be in a position to show that defendant offered to drop it if the money were paid to him, and to conceal it from the other shareholders. Mr Metcalfe then drew attention to the contents of the bill and read several clauses, the first of which was one in which it was stated that at a meeting on the 20th July, 1664, as well as before, and subsequently thereto, the directors had used every endeavour to keep from the shareholders the knowledge of the large and serious losses which had occurred, and to lead them to believe that the company was progressing most favourably and making considerable profit, and for that purpose proposed that the remaining 4,000 shares should be issued at a premium of £3 per share, giving the shareholders and customers a preference ; and until very lately they had suc ceeded, and caused the shares of the bank to obtain a cJn siderable price, and the shareholders to agree to the report presented to the meeting. Mr Metcalfe said there was no t the slightest foundation for such a statement. There was no loss at that time, nor did there appear to be any until the sth of September. In the next clause it stated that he (plaintiff) had, however, since such meeting and paysnent of dividends. and within eel s , the, t..., that not only there were no profits in hand out of which any dividend ought to have been paid, but that great part of the called-up capital had been lost, and that the amount winch up to the present time had been lost exceeded tree. fourths such c illed-up capital, and in fact amounted to more than £lOO,OOO, so that there was really less than £26,000 for the purpose of carrying on the business, the number of shares issued bud taken up since the meeting having been very few. Mr. Metcalfe said he should be in a position to show that the only loss the bank had sustained was the £35,000 he had already alluded to, and that the bank had at the time £30,000 cash in hand, besides £160,000 worth of good trade bills, and that the losses were declared to the shareholders at the meeting. On Sept. 23 a call of £5 a share was made, which could have been made five months before, but it was not wanted, inasmuch as the bank was making largo profits; and after that an amalgamation with the Midland Bank was proposed, and Mr Symons and ano ther gentleman were the only ones opposed to it. There was a general meeting held, and all the shareholders but Mr Symons passed a vote of confidence in the directors. The shares being at a discount was partly and chiefly through Mr Symons being so ill advised as to make such a stir in tho matter. If he had not pursued such a course, he would have most likely been able to sell his shares at a premium. When defendant found that a meeting of shareholders had been called by the directors, then he took the proceedings in the Court of Chan cery, and thought no doubt that they would be unanswered, and that the bill would remain on the file and damage the bank, and the directors would be glad to comply with his demand. Mr Metcalfe then alluded to another clause, in which it was stated that the plaintiff had caused application to be made to the London and Northern Bank for information in respect to the amalgamation, but all information had been refused, and he was unable to ascertain the particulars of such proposed amalgamation. As regarded that clause, Mr Metcalfe said Mr Sy mons had applied to Mr Turner, the manager of the bank, for information, and he gave him all ho could ; but there were some matters which could not be made public. A meeting of the shareholders was called, and the proposition was duly submitted to them. In another clauso the plaintiff alluded to a loss which he alleged the directors had sustained of upwards of £30,000, by Messrs. Emanuel and Brillman, late of 76, Leadenhall-street, in the City, stating that they had received notice from Dr Cook, a friend of the plaintiff's, and Mr Chatteris, the accountant of the London and Northern Bank, not to trust them, and the manager of the bank had said ho had not and would not trust them. Mr Metcalfe said Messrs Emanuel and Brills man had been trusted certainly more than they ought to have been, but they stood very high and were trusted by many others, and they failed ; but the loss sustained by their failure was estimated at £35,000, as well as losses by other customers, who had been mentioned in another clause, named Stern and Croskey. In the next clause the plain tiff alleged that the large sums so lost had for some time prevented the company's business being carried on in a proper and legitimate manner, and the directors had raised funds for enabling them to carry on the business by issuing bills of exchange, giving their acceptances as direc tors, to a very large amount, upwards of £30,000 of which had been discounted by beokers and others, and a number of which bills and acceptances were still not yet matured and outstanding. This, Mr Metcalfe said, was utterly and en tirely false, and there was not the slightest pretence for say • ing that the directors had ever issued bills as alleged, and it was put in by Mr Symons with the view of compelling the directors to pay him his money, which he found he could not get in any other way. In the following clause it was:stated that the bank had no ready money to carry on their business, and in fact had no funds for such purpose other than what they get by this call of £5 per share, and by issuing bills of exchange bearing the bank's acceptance. He had already stated that there was:£3o,ooo cash in hand, besides a large amount in good trade bills, and therefore that clause was alike untrue, In the next clause it was stated that the directors perfectly well knew that the manager, Mr Turner, was totally.unfit for the position, and that he had not been employed at the London and West minster for ten years, but had been engaged as one of the principal officers of the Unity Bank, which had failed, and they had notwithstanding appointed him manager at their head office in London, and with a view of deceiving the shareholders had causedhis name to be publicly advertised as late of the London and Westminster Bank, and had wilfully concealed the fact of his having been one of the chief officers of the Unity Bank which had so disastrously failed. Mr Metcalfe , said Mr Turner had been 21 years in the London and Westm!nster Bank, and the direcors re ceived from that bank the highest testimonials as to his character and capabilities. In another clause it was alleged that the directors had a personal interest in carrying on the business of the bank, and attempting to show that the profits were large, although they knew to the contrary, for by a clause in the articles of association it was provided that the directors were ann ua ll y t o di v id e amongst them for their services a sum of 43,000, an d th a t if t h ey d ec l are d a dividend of £0 per cent. and not exceeding £B, they were to retain amongst themselves £l,OOO • and if 43 and not excee di ng £lO, an additioal sum ' of £2,000, and £l,OOO additional for every £2 per cent. beyond £lO per cent. This clause Mr Metcalfe said was copied from rum SUN, LONDO the clause in the articles of ,some other bank, and was op posed by the directors at a general meeting, and was struck out of the articles. In another clause the plaintiff stated that the dividend which had been recommended and paid was paid out of the paid-up capital of the bank, and not out of the profits, the directors well knowing there were no pro fits, in consequence of the very serious loss which occurred which had been before mentioned. There were other clauses which Mr Metcalfe said were equally false, and which he said he should submit was the matter which the defendant threatened to publish. He then called Mr Ralph Walters, who said he lived at Eaton-square, and had property in Newcastle. He was a magistrate in the county of Middlesex, and was nominally a member of the bar, but had considerable ;property. He was one of the directors of the London and Northern Bank, and Mr E. Briggs, Mr Thos. Collins, Mr Robert B, Hay, Mr Ivie Mackie, Mr Chas, .Poppleton, Mr Wm. Dallison Starling, and Mr B. T. Wood were also directors, Most of those whose names were mentioned had been directors from the first. At the first meeting of the bank there was a reso lution passed to do away with clause 79, enabling the direc tors to divide a sum of money between them. It was ex punged upon the motion of the directors, and as the articles then stood the directors had no power to divide a fraction. Mr Lewis suggested that it might not have been ex punged by the defendant's knowledge. Witness continued—He could not tell the exact date, but it was at the first general meeting. The bank was opened in 1862, and the general meeting was held within the year. Mr Alderman Stone—There would be a minute on the book of that nature. Examination continued—Witness had no doubt of it. The articles were published without that clause. The directors had not divided amongst them a single shilling, directly or indirectly. They had taken nothing for salary or anything else. Up to September last he had no doubt but the bank was in a flourishing condition, and at the present time he had no doubt but that the bank was perfectly solvent. The sum of 410,000 was paid to the original promoters, Mr Clench and Mr Kintien, who had expended a large sum of money. It was paid to them by the articles of association, and except that sum, no other had been paid to anyone in way of gift or remuneration. In the articles issued after the meeting there was a clause which stipulated that the direc tore were to take nothing except what the shareholders might vote from time to time. Mr Symons was a large shareholder. Some time in October he went to him at the bank. Witness thought it was about the middle. lie did not know the de fendant before then ; but in consequence of what a clerk told him, he spoke to Mr. Symons. He first spoke about several things, and then said that he bad been a shareholder in another bank, and he took the course of calling a meeting of the shareholders at the London Tavern, and he would do the same with this bank unless his shares were taken at par. Witness said any such meeting would be extremely damag • ing to Mr Symons' own property as well as to the bank generally, to which Mr Symons replied that he and the directors had plenty of money, and must take the shares off his hands, or he would call the meeting. Defendant then put his hand in his pocket and pulled out a paper, which he said was a draft of a circular to call the meeting. The draft, he said, was to be printed and circulated amongst the share holders. Witness said he would be no party to any compro mise in the matter; defendant must take his own course. Witness did not have the paper in his hand. Defendant read a few lines of it. It was not a printed paper. (Two letters were shown to the witness, but he could not say which of the two it was,) This was the only time that he recollected seeing Mr Symons upon the matter referred to. On being cross-examined, witness said bills before they were discounted were not taken before him or any of the directors to his knowledge. He was not aware that any busi ness was being done in London in discounting bills except occasionally. Ho found that the manager had discounted very considerably; but he was not aware of it at the time. He had never seen any exact account, and he did not know what the amount was. He had not looked into the books of the bank since the bill had been filed in Chancery to see the amount of discount in London. He had asked the accountant but he had not heard from him what the amount was. Mr Lewis (to witness)—Did the manager discount bills in London contrary to your direction ? Witness said his sanction was not asked. He frequently saw the manager, and he did not tell him he was discount. ing in London. He did not know how much the manager had discounted for Emanuel and Brillman. He formed his opinion of the solvency of the bank by the statement of the accountant. He had not seen any statement which showed the losses at Leeds. He could not tell how much Messrs Emanuel and Brillman owed. Emanuel and Brillman were bankrupts. At present the debt was not proved. The ac counts were not made up. No doubt the books would show. He understood it was about V. 0,000. He had never refer red to the books, but ho understood it was that amount. He did not understand it was £26,000. He would not swear it was not that amount. He had examined the ledger as to certain amounts, but not that particular one. He declined to name any particular account. Ile did not know how much there was owing to the bank in London in bad bills, but he understood the total losses must be covered by the £30,000, without considering any dividends which might be received. That included the losses at Leeds. He could not say the amount of the bank's acceptances out at that 11., am uvb huutv cpn-caa do ..f JJZOO,OOO. He presumed the business could not be carried on without acceptances. There was a director named Denton, who retired in the early part of the present year. He had never heard that he had given acceptances. There was a customer of the bank at Leeds named Denton, by whom there was a lees. He did not know that Mr Denton had acceptances of the bank to a large amount. He did not know what Mr Denton owed. He never heard of any ap prehended for the London and Northern Bank. He was present at the meeting when the dividend was declared. At that meeting the directors issuci new shares at £2 pre , ..ium. He did not know how long after that meeting the shares were at a discount, as he was from town. In the middle of September on his return from the country, they were at £5" discount, with a call of £5 to pay. He spoke to Mr Turner, the manager, about it, and he then informed him of the loss the bank had sustained. He was very much surprised to find they were discounting. Mr Lewis—So were we. Have you the same confidence in the manager which you had ? Witness said in one sense ho certainly had not. Ho was far too easy—people had imposed upon his good nature. He understood that a person named Sterne had transactions with Mr Turner, and it was stated at the last meeting that he owed the sum of £3,000 unsecured. He did not know that Mr Sterne was indebted to either the Unity or London and Middlesex, which had failed, and had no knowledge that he was a customer of either bank, He had heard that Mr Turner, the manager, was in the London and Middlesex, and he had heard that he was in the Unity Bank. He had no knowledge of how long he had been at the Unity. He wes not a party to publishing to the shareholders that Mr Turner was late of the London and Westminster. He was not one who voted the £lO,OOO to the promoters. He was first aware that sum had been voted very early after the commencement of the bank. He did not see how much of the £lO,OOO was outlay. He asked to see, and it was generally given. It was laid upon the table at one of the meetings, but he did not know who laid it before them. The shareholders, he understood, went with the full knowledge of the fact. Mr Symons was not a shareholder at that time, but he would have a better chance of knowing than the others. The sum was included in the preliminary expenses. The preliminary expenses were not put down as assets. They were put down in the balance. sheet as a payment. It did not appear by the balance what was due to the bank's acceptances. There was £ll,OOO as outstanding liabilities. He did not know they were acceptances. He supposed it was the item of drafts on which the bank was to receive payment of the cus tomers. He did not know that it was for acceptances of the bank given to customers. He did not understand that it was a liability upon which the bank had no security. He did not know how much the Leeds Bank, which had failed, held of their acceptances. He was not aware they had any. The bank had branches at Leeds, Huddersfield, Sheffield, and Newcastle. The directors held their meetings at the offices in London. He had never attended a meeting at any of the branches. The branches wet a under the superinten dence of the managers. There was no board to regulate the management. The directors had reports sent up every week. The managers of the branches ought not to discount bills without the sanction of the board in London. Mr Lewis—Why did you not come to this court and make tho complaint on the 15th October ? Witness said because neoessiiy did not seem to require it. He did not know the day he first saw the hill in Chancery. He knew there was notice of motion for an injunction to restrain an amalgamation. He gave the instructions for his own answer. He did not swear any affidavit. He wrote down instructions for that purpose. Ile did not make the complaint because the injunction WAS made. The bill charged him with neglect, and sought to make him personally liable. It was not proposed to amalgamate with the Midland Bank ing Company within the last month. Ho was not aware that they were restrained by Mr Symons from amalgamating. The shareholders had not pledged them not to amalgamate. The terms proposed that the Midland Company was to give their £6O. shares fer the £lOO shares of the London and Northern, and they were indebted to Mr Symons for coming over to that. That was the proposition made by tho Mid land Bank. Mr Lewis—Up to that time had Mr Symons taken any legal steps against the bank ? Witness said ho was not aware that ho had. The shares had gone down previous to:Mr Symons going to the bank. He dil not attribute the fall to the defendant. He attri buted the subsequent fall to the defendant's proceedings. He did not know any one to whom the defendant had com municated his intention. Witness was at the Leeds meeting on Monday the 14th, which was called to carry out the amalgamation. Mr Symons was there. The chairman, in opening the meeting, said a summons had been granted against defendant for attempting to extort money. The letter produced (one of the two alluded to Lefore) appeared to be like the one defendant produced when he called at the bank. The letter was dated 14th October, 1864, and signed by Mr Symons, and was as follows: " Sir,—l beg to request your attendance at a meeting to be held at the London Tavern, on Monday the 23d instant, for the purpose of considering the present position of the London and Northern Bank. lam a holder of 100 shares, and think it most desirable that we should meet prior to paying the call last made." He did not recollect whether defendant asked him whether the call of £5 had been made to pay the losses of the bank ', THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 17, 1864. or to extend the business of the bank. He had no recollec' tion of defendant speaking of the rumoured losses the bank had had to a large amount. He did not say that a friend of his, Dr Cook, and Mr Chatteris, the accountant, had cautioned their manager against Mr Stern and Emanuel and Brillman, The defendant referred to the downward move ment of the shares. That was the ground on which he was to issue the circular. He expressed his dissatisfaction of the general management of the bank, but not of the directors. Mr Lewis—Did he not say before he paid his call he would call a meeting of shareholders and know how the bank stood and that he would make the directors liable for every shil ling the shares had cost him ? Witness said not that he was aware of. The defendant did not read the whole of the letter. What he said was to the effect that he was going to call a meeting. Defendant did not read the whole of the letter. Witness only gathered he intended to call a meeting of shareholders, and when he pointed out the damage it would do defendant said he must take his shares at par. Mr Lewis—Will you swear that he did not say that be would make the directors liable for every shilling ho had paid for his shares ? Witness said he would. He did not recollect that defen dant asked what amount of losses the bank had sustained. He had no doubt he told him he was not in a position to tell him. A dividend was declared on June 30, 1864. The balance was prepared by the three auditors of the bank, and is signed by them. Witness did not recollect what the pro , fit was up to that time. He thought it was about £4,000. Mr Lewis—Do you not know that you had sustained a loss or £15,000 by Messrs Emanuel and Brillman at that time ? Witness said the loss was not sustained at that time. He did not believe any of the bills were dishonoured at that time. He did not think it likely that the £4,000 profit was formed partly from the interest on the bills by which the bank had sustained the loss. Witness did not know that Dr Cook and Mr Chatterie, before June 30, cautioned the manager with respect to the debts of Mr Stern, and Messrs Emanuel and Brillman. Re-examined by Mr Metcalfe—He had not heard that Dr Cook had applied for accommodation on bills of Mr Symons, and was refused. Mr Lewis said ho was instructed th%t that was quite un true. His client was well known to be a man of extensive property. Witness's re-examination continued—An accountant had been employed to go through the accounts. He had reserved his answers to the charges in the bill by the advice of his solicitor. The day for the cross-examination of the defendant was fixed. He thought Dr Cook and another gentleman were present at the time defendant made his threat. Mr Lewis said Dr Cook was the gentleman who had cautioned Mr Symons. Witness in answer to Mr. Metcalfe, said—The chairman at the meeting at Leeds informed the shareholders that a bill had been filed charging the directors with negligence, and that a summons had been taken out against Mr Symons for attempting to extort money. The feeling of the share holders was, with the exception of Mr Symons and another gentleman, one of confidence in the directors, and strong against the defendant. John Peacock Turner said he was manager to the London and Northern Bank, and prior to occupying that position was 21 years in the London and Westminster. He was cashier in the Unity Bank for four years, and was after that manager to a branch bank of the London and Middlesex. He had been manager to the London and Northern Bank since the formation in . 1862. The loss of the bank was, in his opinion, about £20,000 or £30,000, and the bank was at the present time quite solvent, and up to September was making large profits. He knew Mr Symons. He had seen him at the bank several times. He went immediately after the losses were discovered to get some information respect ing the kisses. Witness could not give him any information and he demanded to see the books, which witness would not allow without an order from the board. Defendant said that unless he had his shares taken off his hands at par he would bring down that bank the same as he had another bank, and he intended to call a meeting immediately. Wit ness told him he could not take his shares at par, but if he heard of anyone wanting to purchase he would let him know. He did hear of some one wishing to purchase 50 shares at £5 discount, and told the defendant, but ho said, " No; he must take his shares at par." On another occa sion defendant said witness must give him a cheque for £l,OOO, as he had then a circular prepared and in his pocket to call a meeting, and he must have £l,OOO, and he would give a month for the remainder. He told defendant he would see what he could do, and communicate with him by five o'clock. He mentioned the matter to some of the directors, who would not allow him to pay any money, and he did not pay it. Dr Cook went with the defendant on some occa sions, and was present at some of the interviews, and hoard what was said. Witness had refused to discount for Dr Cook Mr Symons's acceptance for £1,500. That was in July. Af.ec the bill was filed it was taken to him by Mr Lewis. Witness had seen the circular produced before, not in the defendant's hands. This was the case on the part of the complainant. Mr Alderman Stone said the threat must be positive and &dined—not inferred as it appeared to him it was in this C 389 ; and ho did not think there was sufficient in tho evi dence to establish the threat within the act of Parliament. DSr mciccare evutc.ded that he had threatened to issue the circular with intent to extort the mono,. Some slight discussion ensued, Mr Metcalfe contending that the threat to publish anything touching another with a view to obtain money came within the meaning of the act equally as if the matter contained in it were libel. Mr Alderman Stone raid no doubt the statute was in tended to punish where an attempt was made to extort money ; but he did not think that this case came within the term to extol t money ; and moreover it would bo wrong in him, while a suit was pending in the Court of Chancery charging the directors with certain things, to put that aside by deciding the case upon a summons in that Court, and he was not of opinion that the matter published was of such a character as came within the meaning of the statute, and he should therefore dismiss the summons. Summons dismissed accordingly, :Cho case occupied nearly five hours. SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. THE TIMES AND Da. SMETHIIRST.—We cannot affect to be in the least surprised that Dr. Smethurst should have thought fit to try himself over again at the bar of his own opinion,and should have seized an opportunity to publish the verdict in our columns. What does surprise us, and, indeed, fills us with amazement, is that he should venture to represent our passing allusion to him in connection with Mul ler's case as "alike injurious to myself, the Govern• went, and the people." We must presume that Dr. Smethurst understands his own interests better than any one else, though we are at a loss to conceive how they can be advanced by obtruding himself on the public, but we emphatically decline to identify them with those of the Government or of " the people." If our remarks were injurious to himself, it must have been the fault of the facts, for we simply dirs• claimed any intention to question "the justice of the final decision," and confined ourselves to censuring the particular method in which the sentence was reviewed by Sir G. C. Lewis. Dr Smethurst, it is true, demands something more than neutrality and suspension of judgment; he claims the expression of a judgment in his own favour. We take the liberty of informing him that such a claim will never be recognised by us. We find nothing in the Come mon Law which gives a pardon the effect which he attributes to it. It makes the offender "a new man," it relieves him from " all corporal penalties and forfeitures," it gives him a right of action against any one who shall call him felon or traitor, but that is all. It leaves his character where it found it, except so far as it is granted upon proofs of innocence which carry conviction to the public mind. Not only may the recipient of it have been guilty of crimes as odious as the one to which it applies; he may have been proved guilty of that very crime in the opinion of the Home Secretary himself, but under circumstances different from those inferred by the jury from the evidence. We cannot suppose th a t t h e L or d Chief Baron meant to lay down a doctrine which would conflict with this in the passages quoted by Dr Smethurst—as suming, of course, that they are correctly quoted. We may say that we have searched our owu law reports for them in vain under the dates specified by Dr Smethurst, and have referred with equal ill success to the pages of the Law Journal. If the words in question were really uttered by the Lord Chief Baron, whi c h we by no means deny, we pre• mine they were used in reference to the case of Mr Hatch ; but, whatever their immediate purport, they are far from justifying the construction put upon them by Dr Smethurst. They imply no more than this—which is matter of common notoriety—that a pardoned man must be taken to have been wrongly convicted—that is, either convicted of a crime which he did not commit, or on inadequate evidence of a crime which he did commit, and that in either case he is thenceforth " innocent"of that crime in the eye of the law. But Dr Smethurst is not content with mak ing a demand which we have shown to be exorbi tant. He insists on going into the details of his own trial, with a view to show that the jury would have been wrong in convicting him of murder upon any theory whatever. It is doubtless with the same objtct that he fortifies himself with the high autho. rity of the German Legal Protection Society, who state explicitly that " the accusation was found to be false," and that "no one ever since doubted that he was wrongfully convicted of the crime of which he was adjudged to death." We have not the least wish to undertake the duty which Dr. Smethurst imposes upon us, but we cannot allow him to mis lead the public by his own version of the facts. A very short summary of them will suffice for the pre sent purpose. Dr. Smethurst was indicted for and convicted of the murder of Miss Bankes, and the case for the prosecution was directed to show that he administered poison to her with intent to pro. duce death. All the evidence with respect to his alleged interest in the lady's death, the execution of her will, and so forth, was adduced in support of that hypothesis, and would lose much of its signifie canoe on the supposition that he administered poison with intent to procure abortion. This Was the sugs gestion made by the Lord Chief Baron after a care ful examination of the materials submitted to him by Sir G. C. Lewis, some of which we then pro duced for the first time. It is to this that Dr. Smethurst now addresses himself, volunteering to demonstrate its absurdity. The arguments, and the only arguments, upon which he relies, are, first, the improbability of his having attempted to procure abortion at so very early a stage of pregnancy as that supposed; secondly, the improbability of his having employed poison in preference to instru ments. Now it is no doubt true that, according to the testimony of medical witnesses for the prose cution, the pregnancy of Miss Bankes must:have begun about the same time as her illness, and it is very probable that it would never have been sus. petted by a medical man not cognieant of Miss Bankes's seduction. It may also be true, for aught we know that " a stiletto would have done the busi ness in the course of an hour or so ;" but these, after all, are but a priori reasons, and a far more solid kind of proof was laid before the jury. Dr Smethurst alludes to it himself when he ridicules the idea of his having administered " arsenic and antimony" to effect abortion. Of this, so far as we are aware, he was not accused, but of administering some irritant poison, and probably either arsenic or antimony. The chief grounds upon which he was accused re main to be stated. When Miss Bankes's body was examined appearances of a highly abnormal charac ter presented themselves, One scientific witness after another swore that they were such as might have resulted from poison, and could hardly have resulted, if at all, from the action of any known dis ease; This conclusion was identical with that to which three medical men were led independently by an observation of the symptoms during life. At the same time, distinct though slight traces of antimony were detected by Dr. Taylor in certain organs, and it happened that a letter of the prisoner OD: Julius referred to a prescription containing antimony, al though no such prescription had been given. Waiv ing the more doubtful questions,such as that relating to the symptoms of poisoning by arsenic, and that concerning the relative eminence of the chemists and doctors called for the prosecution and defence, there is surely enough here, coupled with Dr Smethurst's relation to the deceased and his conduct during the illness, to raise a presumption of his guilt. We say a presumption, for it was of course capable of being rebutted by evidence of equal weight,and an attempt was made to do so. The discovery of the antimony was never disproved or explained, but the quantity being small the inference founded on it was dis credited, It was urged that no poison was found in the prisoner's possession, though he had easy means of geting access to it; discrepancies were pointed out between the symptoms noticed and those consequent upon an timonial poisoning, and the former were ascribed to dysentery supervening on pregnancy. It would be Equally futile and improper for us to strike a balance between these considerations, but we have no hesitation in stating our opinion that unless the jury were satisfied with this part of the case far the prosecution their verdict was unwar. rentable. The Chief Baron's view of it was clearly indicated, and has never been retracted, and the sub sequent statement of his opinion that "the prisoner ought not to be hanged" is a very different thing, as Dr Smethurst must well know, from a testimonial to his innocence. Such a testimonial, however, if Dr Smethurst is correct, was furnished by Sir G. C. Lewis in his place in Parliament. As the passage alleged to contain it is quoted in the letter at length, we need only draw attention to the concluding Ben, tence :—" That was the hypothesis which a consi deration of all the evidence had suggested to him (the Chief Baron), but it was an hypothesis wholly different from that which was adopted by the pro secution at the trial, or from that which was sub mitted by the judge to the jury, and it is impossible for me to say whether, if that view of the evidence had been submitted to them, they would have found a verdict of guilty." If this is what Dr Smethurst calls " settling the question" of any doubt as to his innocence, he is very welcome to it. To us, so far from settling the question, it appears to leave it open in express terms, and this is exactly what was done by Sir B. Brodie's report. A perusal of that report, temperate and impartial as it is, will cer tainly not weaken any objection to the course pure sued by Sir G. C. Lewis. It embraces topics far beyond the province of a physician, however emi nent, and by acting avowedly upon it, instead of consulting Sir B. Brodie privately to inform his own judgment, the Home Secretary constituted a single arbitrator into a Court of Criminal Appeal. It was against this that we protested ; it is against this that we still protest, in the fixed belief—which we regret to find is not shared by Dr Smethurst—that no " danger to the life of the people" arising from erroneous convictions is half so great as that which would arise from increased uncertainty in the punishment of the guilty. The following is the letter' alluded to above Sir,—My notice has just been called to some injurious observations to myself, made by you in reference to the German Legal Protection Society's memorial in favour of Muller, in which my name becomes very prominent. I read in the Times of Friday, Nov. 11: " Muller was condemned by public opinion Moro ho was brought to England at all, in the same way as, but in a stronger degree than, Dr Smethurst was. This gentleman was convicted of poisoning before the Lord Chief Baron Pollock, who expressed himself satisfied with the verdict, and gave him no hope ; yet when, on a memorial like this, he was respited,',the accusation was found to bo false, and no ono ever since doubted that he was wrongfully convicted of the crime foiwhich he was adjudged to death. It is confi dently hoped that, a similar result would follow the respite prayed for in this case."—Memorial of the German Legal Protection Society. Then follow your cwn comments on the above, which in my opinion are alike injurious to myself, the Government, and the people. You say, in the same paper— " We believe that if Mr Beard had been consulted about the composition of this address so unfortunate an illustra tion would not have been introduced. Dr Smethurst's case is the very last which ought to be quoted as a precedent for the interference of the Home Secretary. With the justice of the final decision wo have nothing to do; it is enough to cay that while the circumstances under which a pardon was granted were peculiar in the extreme, the reference of the matter to one eminent surgeon, aftera solemn investiga tion in court, has been reprobated ever since by the,whole legal profession." The question of any doubt as to my innocence in this case has been fully settled, if not by the entire public opinion, at all events by the late Home Secretary, Sir George Lewis, who possessed every ready means at command to assist him before coming to a determinate conclusion, and the follow. ing is his explanation of the aff sir before the House of Commons. In the limes, January, 28, 1860, Mr Edwin James, Q C . is reported to have said that— " He wished to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State for the Home Department one or two facts connected with the case of Dr Smethurst, who was lately convicted of murder and pardoned by the Crown. The case was a most important one, had engaged a large share of public atten tion, and was likely to ,affect very seriously the criminal jurisprudence of the country." His further observations referred to the overruling of the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the judge, and called for an inquiry. Sir George Lewis said— " With regard to the particular case of Dr Smethurst, the course which I adopted was to call for the shorthand writer's notes of the trial, to hear everything which could be alleged on the part of the prisoner by his friends or legal advisers, and to refer all the papers which were brought before me to the learned judge (Pollock) who tried the case. The learned Chief Baron, after long consideration of the subject, made a very full report, in which he recommended that the mat ter should be referred to some eminent medical practitioner, and I accordingly placed his report in the hands of Sir Benjamin Brodie, whose eminence and fitness will, I think, be universally admitted. In a conversation which I had with him in order to obtain his permission to the reference, ho assured mo that he had but a superficial knowledge of the subject, and had formed no opinion whatever with re.- gard to the case; and therefore, I believe that it would be impossible for me to find a more impartial referee. After full consideration given, I can assure the house, with the utmost attention of which I was master, and after hearing a variety of opinions from different persons, I came to the conclusion that the proper course for me to adopt was to advise the Crown to grant a free pardon ; and I can only say that nothing which has occurred since I gave that ad vice has made me entertain any doubt as to its rectitude. (Hear, hoar.) I think it ;right to state that the Chief Baron expressed an opinion 'that the prisoner ought not to bo hanged ;' and ho subsequently made the sugges tion that Dr. Smethurst did not administer drugs to Miss Isabella Baukes with the view of taking her life, but pos sibly with a view of procuring abortion." That was the hypothesis which a consideration of all the evidence had suggested to him, but it was an hypothesis wholly different from that which was adopted by the prosecution at the trial, or from that which was submitted by the judge to the jury —and it is impossible for me to say whether, if that view of the evidence had been submitted to them, they would have found a verdict of guilty.' " It is in evidence that the deceased fell ill on Sunday, the 27th of March, 1859, and died on the 3d of May, making the duration of her illness five weeks and two days; and that Messrs. Palmer and Barwell, who performed the post mor tem examination, deposed on oath that she was advanced in pregnancy from five to seven weeks. Now, according to the Chief B.ron's statement, I must have begun to administer arsenic and antimony with a view to " effect abortion, but not to kill," on the instant impregnation occurred, for the sickness and dysentery commenced about the same time— flee weeks before death. I challenge the whole medical profession to say that I, or any one, could know of her pregnancy at this early period—and would ask the question is it likely that such deadly mineral poisons would be used for such a purpose by a medical man of many years' expe rience, when lc is generally known in the profession that a stiletto would have done the business in the course of an hour or so ? If we wish to recognize the medical opinion on early pregnancy, let us now our attention to what medical authority does say on this subject. The following conclu sions are admitted in cases of early pregnancy by the best authors on midwifery : "During the first two months the diagnosis is extremely obscure, and connot be made with any degree of certainty. There are no signs by which pregnancy can be determined before the third month."—Byan and Beck's Medical Juris prudence. We may all read in the daily newspapers of the 14th of May and 6th and 7th of November, 1861, the following observations made on the " Royal Pardon," by Chief Baron Pollock himself in the Court of Exchequer : " The Royal Pardon is a most authoritative declaration that the party has been wrongly convicted, and that he was an innocent man."—May 14, 1861. "I say this, that I think it must be taken, according to the administration of our criminal laws, that when a person has been convicted, and the Secretary of State has advised her Majesty to grant a free pardon, that individual has established his innocence in the only way he can according to the administration of the criminal laws of this country, and that he is entitled to the full benefit of that fact." —Nov. 6, 1861. These facts at once put an end to the alleged will motive, and the case altogether, by the Chief Baron's own showing. A case of greater hardship and cruelty, or ono more strik ingly illustrating danger to the life of the people can scarcely be imagined. I therefore ask yes, for the sake of truth, justice, and the satisfaction of the people, to insert this communication in your next impression.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. SMETIIVRST, M.D. London, Nov. 15. Post —We are glad to learn that the proper authorities at Liverpool took yesterday a course that is calculated to protect British subjects from the unscrupulous efforts of the recruiting agents in this country of the Federal army. As the ship Great Western was leaving Liverpool yesterday afternoon she was stopped, on information that she had on board a certain number of passengers who had been decoyed there under false pretences. It is not for the first, but rather for the hundredth time that a case of this sort has occurred. But the present ape pears to be one of the first instances in which false pretences have been established in time to obtain the detention of the vessel. In such cases as these all that we can do is to exert our own vigilance and to apply restrictive measures whenever the event happens to warrant it. It is difficult to perceive how we can do more. Against our own fellow-sub jects we may apply the rigorous terms of the Fo reign Jurisdiction Act where the terms of the act and the circumstances of the case really apply. But in the present instance the circumstances appear to be just the reverse, for the passengers on account of whom the vessel has been stopped are alleged to have been kidnapped. We may also adopt the al ternative of making representations to the Ameria can Government. But here again the difficulty of the case is that the Cabinet of . Washington is cer tain to deny all complicity in any attempt to decoy British subjects into service in the Federal army. Indeed, after the declaration which the American Government recently made, it is hard to suppose that it could possibly do otherwise. Mr Seward fore malty undertook not long ago that this sort of en listment—if that be not too mild a term—should not henceforth be permitted in American ports, much less by agents of his Government in the ports of this country. It is therefore quite out of the question that Mr Lincoln and himself can possibly do otherwise than repudiate the acts attributed to the recruiting agents of the Federal army. Even if the recruit ing were bona fide and above board, it would be just the same; but, where it takes the shape of kid. napping, all the more so. We have no doubt we shall receive the usual answer, that the Federal Government has no knowledge of these transacs tions ; and that the subjects of her Majesty to whom the grievance refers have been decoyed on board the: Great Western by unauthorised agents whom the Federal Government does not recognise and does not employ. Mr Seward will greatly re gret that ihe circumstance should have taken place; he will rejoice that the ship was stopped before it had left British :eaters; and there will be an end of that particular grievance, only to recur, however, on the next occasion of a like character. If this be so, all that we can say is that we must for the future take care of ourselves. We must take more cognise• ance as to who embarks, and for what distinct purpose each person embarks on board ships bound for Federal ports. Cases of this sort have been of continual recurrence in Ireland. They have been brought under the notice of both Houses of Parliament on various occasions. The answer of Lard Russell has invariably been that when ever any instance of complicity in a violation of the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act is to be brought home to persons residing in this country, whether British subjects or_ American citizens, they shall be proceeded against in the manner pointed out by law. But hardly an in stance is to be found of any prosecution on ac count of Federal enlistment having taken place ; and, to tell the truth, these covert violations of our law have been so cleverly contrived that it has been difficult to bring a case hoir.?., with the de 7 finiteness of legal evidence, against any particular individual. Meanwhile, those whose business it has been to support the intetests of the Federal Government in this country have been singularly vigilant in bringing under the cognisance of our tribunals of all cases in which enlistments have taken place on behalf of the Confederate navy. The truth is that, by the uniquil operation of a law de signed to be just and uniform, our neutrality has swayed altogether to the Federal side. The Northerners have throughout had the immense ad vantage of possessieg the command of the sea, while the ports of the Southerners have been blockaded. The practical distinction in the result has been that the North has been enabled to make its enlistments in its own ports, while the South has been com pelled to make them in British ports. It became therefore very easy for Federal agents to represent cases arising on the part of the Confederates for an interference under the Foreign Enlistment Act; but it was very difficult, on the other hand, for Confe derate agents to pick legal holes i❑ the conduct of Federals for enticing British subjects to New York. What was done at Liverpool or Southampton in the one case was done at New York or Boston in the other. On the present occasion, however, the falsity of the pretence under which British subjects have been led to embark appears to have been unusually transparent ; and hence the information under which the Great Western has been stopped. The Federal recruiting agents, in a word, have bungled the matter, and have accordingly been detected. It would be hard to conceive any course more impolitic than that which the Federal Govern ment—to a greater or less extent, at all events have allowed their agents to pursue in this country. What they have been doing simply tends to stop the tide of emigration from this coun try to America. From the moment that British subjects begin to be impressed with a belief that faith will not be kept with them on American soil, they will make the best of the ills they have, and cease to seek their fortunes across the Atlantic. For every ten men, therefore, that Federal agents might obtain for the Union army in a surreptitious manner in this country, they would lose the assist• ance of hundreds of voluntary emigrants. On this account it would seem, if even on no other, impos sible to believe that the Federal Government could for a moment countenance a petty and higgling wrong of this description. They must be at least as alive as we are to the fact that their true inte rest lies in the encouragement of full emigration to the Northern States to supply the lesser which this slaughtering war has made among the population, and they would even obtain more military and re cruits from an ample tide of free emigration than they could do by kidnapping small bodies of men at the cost of discrediting emigration itself. However great may be the difficulty of obtaining fresh sol* diers in the Northern States, we should be stow to believe that the Federal Government had really au• thorised such an impolitic expedient as their zealous Agents in this country have just devised in order to fill the gaps in the ranks of their exhausted armies. BREAKFAST BEVERAGE.—Homoeopathic practitioners, and the medical profession generally, recommend cocoa as being the most healthful of all beverages. When the doc trine of homoeopathy was first introduced into this country, there were to be obt lined no preparations of cocoa either at tractive to the taste or acceptable to the stomach ; the nut was either supplied to the crude state, or so unskilfully manufactured as to obtain little notice. J. Epps, of London, Homoeopathic Chemist, was induced in the year 1839 to turn his attention to this subject, and at length succeeded, with the assistance of elaborate machinery, in being the first to produce an article pure in its composition, and so refined by the perfect trituration it receives in the process it passes through, as to be most acceptable to the delicate stomach. For general use Epps's Cocoa is distinguished as an invigo rating, grateful breakfast beverage, possessing a most deli cious aroma. Dr. ilassall, in his work, "Food and its Adulteratiols," says —" Cocoa contains a great variety of im portant nutritive principles—every ingredient necessary to the growth and sustenance of the body." Again: "As a nutritive, cocoa stands very much higher than either coffee or tea." Directions—Two teaspoonfuls of the powder in a breakfast cup, filled up with boiling water or milk. Secured in tin-lined ilb., ,lb., and 11b. labelled packets, and sold by grocers, confectioners, and chemists.- [Anv'r.] [ADVERTISEMENT.]— Holloway's Pills—Healthy Homes —Nine-tenths of our ailments might be altogether pre vented or directly cured if the first faulty action were set right. This great end is accomplished with wonderful cer tainty and safety by Holloway's pills, which are adap ed to the stout as well as to the frail, and are equally adapted so every constitution and climate. They purify the blood, that seat of life and source of health, and in its revivifying streams diffuses regularity and vigour throughout the sr, tern, and gives every organ its proper natural function. Holloway's pills have done for the dyspeptic and low spirited what no wealth or wisdom had previously achieved —they have put it in their power to conquer their miserable feelings. An Imposter. meth ( ' At the Manchester Police-tour a - b og named Edward Wallacott, was c harged with otioestr money under the false pre t e nce that he wa s coil° ftra scriptions towards the purchase of a chapel at Vig 8 : 0 0 the Baptists, for the Unitarians. Wh en taken/at° c hop he admitted that he had no authority to collect attc'o scriptions. A book, which he had produced to euba cri tio o represented that a:small but rapidly-increasing to" society exists in Wigan, composed principally af . 4 411 of the working classes, who had become distia;al:o9o the irrational dogmatic theology of so-calle d %) tt# bodies, a theology more suited to mediaeval tiraed '° the present age. The leading inhabitants vies:oo# attempt to introduce the deadly heresy of Soch ii . is to itile i their most liberal and enlightened form of Christi e sto t been styled by a clergyman in the town, with t,,1100, possible aversion and alarm; it surely, therefore, legal Unitarians, the disciples and advocate s, hot °f 3 . o gfs l/14 superstition, but of a humanising. an d soul-elevatigoegr to bo z 3alous in its dissemination, The s ocietY a t 00 0 11 , 1 pealed to the wealthy friends of the good ca use la . for t, ter to assist them in purchasing a n eat and 01004 1 chapel, built fur the Baptists. and wh ich was for D ees' $ with a view to their permanent settlem ent andieerthe E. Higginson was stated to be the treasurer, O d a oil . appeared to be recommended by the Bet r iboie: J. N. Porter, W. C. Squier, A. Gordon, J. . P : e d tOr A. Steinthal, and J. Wright. The book purPelf.',.„A that Wigan and its neighbourhood had subserwW and to record subscriptions from Sir John 13°W do a, //'; Justice Crompton, and the Lord Mayor of Le n ss al Alderman Mackie, merchant, Plymouth-07100e Saturday the prisoner came to his place _, (4 „;,,a. , v ; Ducie-street, and showed him the book Pre" . ., l 05 1 nese real a part of the statement it COntaioo4 ore ir proving the object there set forth, said he would!" towards it, and put his name on the book for thet a 00 10 The prisoner said his name was Higginson, 1001/ was a brother of Mr. Higginson, a Unitarian tatj; Melbourne, from which place ho had just returtlier prisoner also said ho was distantly related to h ir L o al son, of Swansea. Witness told the prisoner he - m , pay him the amount of his subscription, but that a .dar i , send it to the treasurer at Wigan. The prison r 7O usual for him to receive the donation when he„ _ottil . promise of it, but witness said he had m ade it 'preta°4 give subscriptions in the way he had stated. 111. ' ,7 01 said he would call on witness again on Afet id , B „ g l ee l informed that he might do so. Witness felt Ova" - t all; the object in view, and suggested to the prisollefoor, should solicit a subscription from Mrs Nichelle• 1 ./.0 0 1 senor then directed witness's attention to 1" 10,i name on the book, and said she had already guineas. Witness saw that Mrs Nicholls's 5113:noer. in her writing, and this induced him to enter on ' s of picion of the prisoner. When bo returne d be t: o day night he wrote to Mrs Nicholls, and was if j see/ she had never seen the prisoner, but tha t be uisilo.o" Ald Nicholls, who had not given him anythil i t o ra: prisoner called upon witness on Monday, be h a d bird politely for the use of his name, which he said ,wit, very great service to him in obtaining contribtl'' p riaoO P that he had had great success on Saturday a.a nese told the prisoner he had probably been air) than ho deserved to be, and asked him wha t n a ,7 o Fri; under that day, as ho had ascertained t hat t ad S,O assumed a variety of names. The prisoner friaato been the dupe of others. Witness said he ce 136. 0 9 4 0 prisoner a swindler, but the prisoner said 1 0 ,45 bad as he appeared to be, He asked to be allowe d 0 0o r but witness sent for a policeman and gave him In the book witness had seen the signature of .`' d " Wood, as a subscriber of £lo.—Mr W , ° hB bo r) ton Lodge, said he never saw the prisoner oft - 0 ' that morning, and never wrote, or gave any to write his name as a subscriber of £lO lo t' n It. I'. Greg, Outwood Lodge, Prestwich, sa id 0 1 the prisoner called at his office in Chancery 10_, the book, gave a general representation of thr l i e ' in the preface, and solicited a eubscriotion• subscription list to be genuine and the object to' be he gave the prisoner £5, and wrote his naine: Ho was completely deceived. Witness asked the for a reference, and he mentioned some res ideat4 o l ", whom witness did not know. Tho p r esidia; said the prisoner would ultimately be conatoltot, , n • led for obtaining money under false pretences, but - time he would be remanded to Friday. COUNTRY MARKETS. MONMOUTH—TuEsDAV . ed 61 The local markets have been tolerably attelv, buyers and sellers during the last silt or and there has been a considerable amount of Wheat commands an average sale, and bal l ; request. Oats and beans in good demand, al The average quotations are as follows :-- Wheat, white 5s 3d to 5s 10d I 8ar1ey...... Ditto red.....0s Od to Os Od Oats ..... HULL—TUESDAY. Since our last a rather dull business 113° the corn trade, and the transactions reported lion of nearly is per qr. Fine high Ws' At our market to-day there was a moderrt,,, English wheat, which met a rather slow ga under the prices of last week. Foreign wh et in . irequest, holders w nting la to 28 reeq: oats, barley, beans, and peas a tolerable sal" change in prices. IN LNN—. At our corn market to-lay TuEsDA the su Y f ppli An" PI middling, and sold at about former rates. 4 10 . 0 : White wheat 41s to 42s f Barley ........ It .. 3Bs to 40s I grinding...'' Beans .34s to 36s 0at5......'' 36s to 38s I Peas .......... D /. 4 MARKET HARBOROUGH—T v-s l - / A moderate show of wheat, which sold steaulotfr recent currencies. Barley in tolerable supP lft fors o d er l a shade less money. Other kinds of grain o'i —White wheat, 41s to 45s ; red, 98s to 42 5, r e , : ` ) ,1: 1 Malting barley at 31s to 33s per qr.; gri-9 2 ,N per 30 st. Oats, old, 26s to 28s; new, et. ; beans, 36s to 42s per qr. 01 1 NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE—D o ,to to At our market to-day there was a mode 010, English wheat, which sold at scarcely 0 0m , last week. A good attendance of the tra de. 4, Averages Wheats, 38s 6d—barley, 2 ' 3Ss 10d—oats, 194 Bd—peas, 3Gs 4d. COAL 31 Frioes of Coal per Ton al a. d. Bower's West Hartley.2o 3 Lambert's West Hart- dtKE T. the close of the totir. Walls P t " di r Braddylro gottoil''„, qaswell ...... .',,. Hetton ....... " 0 e i ISouth ilettoo.. )t, l 4 ; sold, 141 ley l9 91 Eden Main .....22 0 West Hartley 20 3 1 Ships at marke Foreign Mail Packet LiSi Ri h t to N ai x. l s n —PßlNCE. RINCE. 15th t at - L 1.111.19- —oa M t a ho rriage . so t 5 0 t d er L il Prince, Islington, Woodbridge, ElN, R eig e u v . n:doyt.Mundy, s Richardescoomn.dßanks, ihcnutserra. toef et; 00 f orili , pt s l' 11$ I 1\ 4HEW— SWEETING.—On the loth ins"' T 512,11111 W. Sweating, Waiter Ccugrev SE el a b lesti - YE —On the 15th p inst., B CV ° tall' of F E(i , )zr u tq e ,. l .sy:or M uoe etnatgy:aehLosont:gd, zdacouovagf:t : I: 0 i 0 - i CONGRE D I, 0 Dingle, n o: gLFIE:E.,—LEDO6. Esq., „tohaneg aged d s e t 6 h B2 t i . h n s t n . , 8 t at Stoke 148t11.141°131 u rtoof d our 4 ng fid b 1),L., of Casile Mary, CloynC, co. Ca'' , ag Dota MANNERS.—On the 14th inst., at Ilastiog6 cy, aged 46. Julia :5 1P JI SLADE.—On the 15th inst., at liacknol, of L'oya's, aged 76, ;les Li f d TAYLOR. --On the 15t ' t gids"'' ' if h inst., a a, John Taylor, Esq., of Lloyd's, aged .-'l,OOO WESTERN,—On the 15th inst., at 13atb) ' E Id 91. 1( I ril l ie , Mountifort I)e7-014, ii- 1, 11 kir Itt „OP,'F ti;ritexp /1 014 *1, 0 4 1 , 11 Aca a o in I bt hket: 'll E k4P t ecti,r ti'heE 4%11 e m Ar i i , to n , 4 8 b" — .t ; +41 11:11 :1 (1°1 Ah o ,°nt "A q11 1 ( 14 E . 14 l ieei et It 1 1 1 .1 :2 . 14 % :1 1 Yc ti Ant e t i t 80 , P NON 11 - _ hie by • I 411 : 7 MAILS DUE. 0 , es ) Australia and Mauritius, via Southampton''' via Marseilles . Brazil and Cape Verds, by British padin.„t••1;0•11 Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Il e teNt China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southn,,ll,,.° via gavel' ~.s4aft Falkland Islands .",.14011 Gibraltar, via Southampton .......... ,1 , 0 0 0 /.10 ( 1 India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via ............. via Marsc iu. " - ,..v) India (Bombay), via Southampton .. ...... via Mar5ei11e5............ ..• Portugal . • . • ............................ ,•• ' ;P o Nlalta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southanipw ri " via Marseilles o '. .. Newfoundland ...... Oporto and Vigo ........... • .. U. S. and British N, America, by 13rit.P 3 ' xe t.•ll_,D by U.S. Pa e olce pr by Canadian P W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe ..... ' e V( West Indies and Pacific . . ... Bahamas (via New York) ....................... i'rl o Bermuda (ditto) ......................... Cuba and Mexico ....................... Joh Births. ont Ir'eft w A il CARLETON.—On the 6th inst., at liingLl M wife of Colonel Carleton, C. 8., "., d ughter. the HlLronn.—On the 15th inst., at DYtcb le/ ' or aJ Augustus llalford, of a son. chefiljpir KARsLAnE.—On the 15th inst., at.„ 31 L161 0 Regent's-park, the wife of Preston 0-81'" daughter. 4 Ehq., aged 91. WILKINSON.—On the 14th inst.. at F 19 0. 0/ V PlgDy-park, Joshua? Richard Virillil 83. D' ,,f . fr,S%;# itl- ma v rt,l4 l A * o London : Printed and Fr wished by N. -s , i -,,,° o f NO. 1 11 , Strand, Printer, at 1 E l / 1 -11. p i' ) Strand, in the Precinct of the Srroo, ilidil‘leX.— Thursday, November 17' '; W erllll64lli#l i G YPI'i bw - 0 ° 1 1 4) 1' 7181, , 4 54 1 1 4 I $t O r l 'iltqfj , l s f P ,Ye oM%b ° 30 44 ° P ' 4 tO ti t tr Y el° ek i 06 or , -e co a c lo ti u RI, 10 --- 60 4 11 N t 4o 1 8 10 .c . ,1 1 c al l - red , V - °; l i ti te ci l'n 'tl ate l; i1:114,1.01: 4 4 gale '',,i!lit 4t es ? ooheatt r!lY43tr, r 0 ._ I .. 11 4 11 i:r 4l3owel 4%7 d ' Da l li .b9 4, tr(11; claw t YP Th th Th e "It 0 cu Sinkl an 10114 The to.nn li cseri, Th ~9 Loot 1,A4 I.thi 40 8 Seen 44' 1 4h th(a w l . 41 1 t Loal l 1 : 1.4 108 4: 1 4 ) % 4 e t4 11 3' L'Y the t ,e 11,74, r o l ) 4 31,2 00 11( ic i ex t ett ?eto el 9. At t h - reo lm 41 : op ti 4 tZa Der eel Ito T o t4 YI T o ll e „:" 861 1 l'; 4 kOi e t . t nela, 4 41 1 ‘ 11 1` .4 g 1 ; th 1 h 11 ot D4 t th:;ebY e ellt, n u e al „,r 1 4 441 ill, 4.0 tt l i , or , 411 4 , 8 t o 4 l l I ,A qi t,„. e. i Ax 4 4 c ::::„: tlikt:s: 4 : „ : 44 3- : : l i : a u l't 14 th ou 4'4 CW: l 7%t ri„ tl 11, \V6 qtla 4 , 1,, 4, - 'IN, " 41 t: 1 kt, 4 0 li t 4t h la c get • vt